If it helps, my team's website is written using hakyll. http://qfpl.io/
Here is the source: https://github.com/qfpl/blog/ On 04/18/2018 06:15 PM, Les Kitchen wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, at 23:46, Glenn McIntosh wrote: >> Hakyll is under a 3 clause BSD licence. >> https://github.com/jaspervdj/hakyll/blob/master/LICENSE > Thanks, Glenn for finding that. I hadn't noticed it. I'd > looked only at the top-level LICENSE file in the repo, which > just had an author's copyright notice, no licence. > > (Sorry for slow response — I've been a bit out of action with > some flu-y virussy malaise.) > >>> And for my stuff, it's going to be a combination of writing, for >>> which some sort of suitable Creative Commons licence would make >>> sense (by "suitable" I mean GPL-like), and code, for which I'm >>> thinking maybe Apache-2 would make most sense, since the amount >>> of code will be pretty small, and maybe not worth the overhead >>> of GPL. Any opinions? >> I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'overhead' of the GPL? If you plan >> to make source publicly available and reference/include the appropriate >> licence, then you've already there. > Just quoting from the FSF's recommendations at > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html: > > ... > Now for the exceptions, where it is better to use some other > licenses instead of the GNU GPL. > > Small programs > > It is not worth the trouble to use copyleft for most small > programs. We use 300 lines as our benchmark: when a software > package's source code is shorter than that, the benefits > provided by copyleft are usually too small to justify the > inconvenience of making sure a copy of the license always > accompanies the software. > > For those programs, we recommend the Apache License 2.0. This is > a pushover (non-copyleft) software license that has terms to > prevent contributors and distributors from suing for patent > infringement. This doesn't make the software immune to threats > from patents (a software license can't do that), but it does > prevent patent holders from setting up a “bait and switch” where > they release the software under free terms then require > recipients to agree to nonfree terms in a patent license. > > Among the lax pushover licenses, Apache 2.0 is best; so if you > are going to use a lax pushover license, whatever the reason, we > recommend using that one. > ... > > In this context, you can also read > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html. > >> The content on the site would be considered separate from the code, and >> would not be covered by the same copyright. Each article would be an >> original work, and you could use a licence such as CC BY-SA (which is >> perhaps the most GPL-like). > Yeah, CC BY-SA was what I had in mind for content (just couldn't > remember the formula). But there has been some later traffic > about CC0... > > > — Smiles, Les. > _______________________________________________ > Free-software-melb mailing list > Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au > https://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb > > > Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au https://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/
